Venus Species vs. Orion Species

If you want to know what intelligent life "looks like"; go look in a mirror.
If you want to know what kind of world can support intelligent life; look around yourself.
If you want to know what kind of star supports intelligent life; look up in the sky.

Do you not understand that your star supports a planet that supports intelligent life? Or at least that what the life there wants the Universe to
think.

Are you saying there is no intelligent life on Earth? Damn, had me fooled!

Also, where did you ever get the idea you were at the bottom on "the intelligence ladder"? Last I looked there were at least several million species
below Terrestrial Humans in the intelligent dept., and that's just right here on Earth.

At times I believe you don't even read entire posts before commenting....

I said

We can only deduce this from observing what type of star supports intelligent life AS WE KNOW IT. We don't know jack diddly squat about any
other forms of life that may or may not exist

You said all I have to do is look in a mirror or in the sky....Tell me again how our observations of the processes that support life here on Earth
dictate what processes CAN support theoretical lifeforms?

Let's say we have an arsenic based life form....Would our current conditions here support that life form?

Carl Sagan: "...it is very difficult to be certain whether a statement that applies to all life on Earth will turn out to apply to all life throughout
the universe"

You said all I have to do is look in a mirror or in the sky....Tell me again how our observations of the processes that support life here on Earth
dictate what processes CAN support theoretical lifeforms?

Let's say we have an arsenic based life form....Would our current conditions here support that life form?

In as much as the processes here on Earth already do support life. Those same processes work other places too.

Oh, and YES! Absolutely, we have a place for your Arsenic based life form, Its in a lovely place, we call it California. (they have this lake there
...)

What is so "theoretical" about life? Seems to me life is just about: ubiquitous.

Carl Sagan: "...it is very difficult to be certain whether a statement that applies to all life on Earth will turn out to apply to all life
throughout the universe"

Hermes -- "2.That which is below is like that which is above & that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only thing"
-- Newton Translation (Emarald Tablets)

I am not sure you know what the definition of a fact is. I went ahead and got a pen and paper, but when I tried to right down your logic the paper
killed itself.

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement
of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

You are spouting philosophical viewpoints which shouldn't be applied to facts. There are actual, verifiable scientific facts that do not seem to
change and no matter who did the measurements over that last few hundred years came to the same general result. These are called "Constants" So you
are either extremely confused about science in general and how it works, or have intentionally convoluted the debate.

if there were no facts or constants in science we would have never made it to and landed on the moon, much less mars.

Originally posted by fr33kSh0w2012
Oh Great another Woo-Woo thread Get Real people who the hell believes in either David Wilcox or David Icke, Or any of that Nancy Lieder B.S. or any
Channeled crap to begin with.

edit on 1/9/13 by fr33kSh0w2012 because: (no reason given)

Well then why post in a thread that you obviously dont agree with the content? Are you wanting members to star you for your abusive negativity? Why
dont you clear of to another website that actually gives a dam about your negative drivel?

I believe in Wilcock and the Law Of One, and Ra, and Mr Cayce. Dont come into a thread and insult my believe

Didn't Mr Cayce say he found some aspirants or information in Tibet that was far in advance of anything he had seen?

He also wrote a terrible book that isn't supposed to be read, which however sounds like my own depressed stream of writing stuff. Not surprised
there.

Ra on the other hand has a hand in everything. I've recognized him in a lot of channelings, most notably Ramtha (Channeled authority for "what the
Bleep") and he is known (and described as such in the movie) as "lord of the Wind"

Ra on the other hand has a hand in everything. I've recognized him in a lot of channelings, most notably Ramtha (Channeled authority for "what the
Bleep") and he is known (and described as such in the movie) as "lord of the Wind"

"The Devil does not understand the Qabalah well enough to clothe his symbols in harmony." -- Aleister Crowley; GEMATRIA...Equinox Vol. 1, No. 5.

So far you have an Egyptian Sun god attributed to Air, who comes from a planet attributed to Fire, who has some how become the "lord of the wind".
Do you see the inharmony so far of these symbols?

Sigh, if only y'all had left out the part about Venus. Ra can be quite harmonious; when in a wrapper of Air, But the addition of any other element
into this destroys the Harmony and renders the symbol meaningless (or worse).

Also, I should think that there may be no actual relation to anything Cayce did.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.